From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yang Hongyang Subject: Re: [PATCH for 4.6 0/6] Prune legacy migration and move migration v2 out of daft status Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:47:21 +0800 Message-ID: <55AF90D9.6090700@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1437388679-16468-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1437561186.12884.14.camel@citrix.com> <20150722112242.GA6831@zion.uk.xensource.com> <55AF7DDB.3060601@citrix.com> <20150722113023.GB6831@zion.uk.xensource.com> <55AF8547.5080207@citrix.com> <20150722122051.GC6831@zion.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150722122051.GC6831@zion.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Wei Liu , Andrew Cooper Cc: Ian Jackson , Ian Campbell , Wen Congyang , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/22/2015 08:20 PM, Wei Liu wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:57:59PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 22/07/15 12:30, Wei Liu wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:26:19PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> On 22/07/15 12:22, Wei Liu wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:33:06AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 2015-07-20 at 11:37 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>>>>> This series is some cleanup following the integration of migration v2 >>>>>>> into the codebase. It removes the legacy migration implementation >>>>>>> (compatability is provided with the python conversion script), and >>>>>>> adjusts the migration v2 docs/implementation to no longer be >>>>>>> experimental. >>>>>> IMHO we should take this for 4.6, there is no point in shipping >>>>>> obsolete/unused code and leaving it there with the xc_domain_save name >>>>>> and the supported thing with a 2 suffix will only tempt people to >>>>>> continue to use or build on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only real risk here is breaking the build, since if it builds it >>>>>> will surely work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wei, final call is yours. >>>>>> >>>>> Yes. I agree with you. But please do check this doesn't conflict with >>>>> COLOPre before applying. >>>>> >>>>> Wei. >>>> There are no conflicts I am aware of, having rebased this series myself. >>>> >>> Do you mean you rebase on top of full series of COLOPre (including >>> those patches that have not been applied)? That's what I'm looking at. >>> Hongyang could still post remaining part of COLOPre within this week. >> >> Ah - this series does interfere with that, insofar as the other bits of >> COLOPre patch the legacy code to maintain the build. >> >> One of us will have to rebase over the other. I am not fussed which way >> around that is. >> > > Then this series needs to wait until the window for applying patches > with freeze exception is closed. Those series have priority in this > week. Thank you Wei, I think I will remove all colo related patches from COLOPre and send a patchset which only do pure refactoring & bug fix. So that the only patch I need to sort out is the 7th. > > Wei. > >> ~Andrew > . > -- Thanks, Yang.